For months now, everyone has been talking about how second baseman Akinori Iwamura’s $4.85 million 2010 option might be too expensive for the Tampa Bay Devil Rays to pick up, especially with the explosive emergence of Ben Zobrist (your 2009 MLB leader in WAR). But all the speculation I’ve seen has focused on whether the Rays would pick up Iwamura’s option or let him walk.

Nobody mentioned the smarter move, which would be to simply trade Iwamura to a team that found his $4.85 million price tag acceptable. But of course the Rays and GM Andy Friedman were ahead of the curve on this one, and it’s clear that they have been thinking trade for several weeks now, and never even entertained the idea of letting it get to the stage of picking up the option or not.

Instead, they shipped Iwamura to the Pirates today for cost-controlled reliever Jesse Chavez. This move makes sense for both sides. The bullpen was an issue at several points last season, and the Rays were definitely in the market for an arm, so Chavez is a useful addition, especially when their only viable option with Iwamura was going to be to let him walk and get nothing. Meanwhile, the Pirates get a league-average to slightly above league average at a not-unreasonable price to serve as a one-year stopgap at second while they continue to rebuild.

Last night’s World Series contest between the Phillies and the Yankees featured five solo home runs — one apiece from Hideki Matsui, Nick Swisher, and Carlos Ruiz, and two for Jason Werth.

Is there anything in baseball more boring than a solo home run? I mean, sure, it can be pretty darn interesting in the right context, like if it’s a walk-off solo home run or something. Or if it kills a seagull mid-air. But to me, a game with five solo homers tells you a) that the pitchers are throwing strikes and generally keeping runners off the bases and b) that they’re still not really pitching well enough to make the game interesting as a pitchers duel. For these reasons, I consider that a game with five solo shots has to be one of the most boringest kinds of games to watch.

Unless you were a Yankee fan, the most interesting parts of last night’s game were a) the appeal on A-Rod’s homer in the 4th (a two-run homer, let’s note) and when Jimmy Rollins tore up the basepaths in the 2nd, stealing second off of Andy Pettitte and swiping third (he then had to go back to second after Chase Utley fouled off the pitch). That’s about it.

Yes, the game was close enough to maintain suspense until the late innings. But I hope that tonight’s game offers something a little more interesting than the sight of one ballplayer trotting around the bases…five different times.

Last night, two Phillies players tried on new looks. Ryan Howard showed up for the game rocking the playoff beard, and Chase Utley brought back the slicked back hair.

Howard’s new look was somewhat unexpected, as he’s been hot lately and if there’s one thing Crash Davis taught us it’s that you never mess with a winning streak. Howard’s new scruff paid dividends in the first inning, when he stroked a double to right field. He added a single later on, and struck out twice.

Utley’s return to hair gel was a little less surprising, as he struggled in the NLCS, and a change was arguably in order.

I know Sarah cringes whenever Chase slicks back his locks, but I don’t mind. Granted, it’s not his best look. But when Utley globs on the gel, you know it’s business time. It’s what I like to call his Michael Corleone look. Remember how in the beginning of “The Godfather,” Pacino’s Michael is a newly discharged marine, still a little wet behind the ears and more than a little naive about the family business? That’s who this Utley, with the short hair, reminds me of. But by the end of the movie, Michael has been transformed into a cold, ruthless businessman/killer. That’s slicked-back-hair Utley. He’ll make you an offer you can’t refuse. The offer? You’re gonna throw the ball, and he’s gonna hit it out. Capiche?

I’m going to post my own World Series preview later today, where I go position by position. But first I wanted to point out that Philadelphia Daily News columnist Bill Conlin has his own preview up, where he compares the Phillies lineup to the Yankees lineup. Much of the column is fine, but he starts out with one big, steaming turd:

Leadoff: Jimmy Rollins vs. Derek Jeter

The Yankees’ captain is a first- ballot Hall of Fame lock. Rollins adds to his credentials year-by-year. Both are run scorers and producers. Give Jeter the edge as a pure hitter, Rollins check marks for power from both sides and speed. Jeter’s intangibles are off the charts. Rollins revels on the Big Stage.

RINGS: Rollins 1, Jeter 4.

EDGE: Even.

Even? Wow. That’s pretty bold. Jimmy Rollins had a terrible year, while Jeter had a career year and if not for Joe Mauer he’d probably be your AL MVP. Really, here’s all you need to know about the Rollins vs. Jeter debate. A leadoff hitter’s job is to get on base. Rollins was much better at getting on base after the All Star break, but even then his OBP was only .305, which is absolutely terrible. Jeter’s OBP this season was .406 and his career OBP is .388, a much higher mark than Rollins has ever posted in a single season.

I love the Phillies and I love Rollins, but it is impossible to make an intelligent argument that Rollins is a better leadoff hitter than Jeter, which is probably why Conlin keeps things so vague in his column. Rollins gets “check marks for power from both sides” of the plate? Against lefties, J-Ro had two more home runs than Jeter. Against righties, Rollins had one more home run. Does that make up for the 100 points of OBP? Or Jeter’s 40 point advantage in slugging? Bill, did you take into account that Jeter played in a league with stronger pitching? Bill, when you give Rollins check marks for speed, is that because he had one more stolen base this season than Jeter? Because that seems pretty negligible. And did you notice that Jeter actually had a better stolen base percentage? Because that actually seems relevant.

Come on, Bill. Rollins is the man, and when it comes to making bold predictions and giving good quotes he has no peer. And you could make the case that Rollins is a better defender, even though ultimate zone rating suggests Jeter had the better season defensively, as well.

But Jeter is the better leadoff hitter, and it isn’t close.

Today the New York Times has a story about all the bitter Mets fans who can’t decide who to root for (or against) in the World Series.

Mets fans, let me make it easy for you. (Don’t worry, I won’t use any big words.)

The unfortunate reality for everybody in America who isn’t a fan of the Phillies or Yankees is that no matter who wins, you all lose.

One of the two fanbases is about to get insufferably obnoxious. You thought Boston was bad after the Sox won their 2007 World Series? You ain’t seen nothing yet.

It’ll take the Yankees fans about five minutes to go back to being every bit as insufferable as they were in the late nineties, when winning was their birthright. There is no chance — none — that nearly a decade of playoff stumbles has humbled this bunch. They do arrogance like Bob Ross did puffy clouds.

When the Phillies won their World Series last year, we Phils fans viewed it as nothing short of a miracle. We didn’t boast too much, because we understood that whoever or whatever higher power is in charge of dolling out karma clearly fell asleep at the wheel and we got lucky. But this year, if the Phils beat the Yankees there will be one inescapable conclusion: our team really is this good. And we’ll make sure you’re reminded of it often.

Like I said, either way one group of fans will get a much unneeded ego boost.

So who to root for? Simple. There are a lot more Yankees fans than Phillies fans. A lot more. If you want to minimize the level of obnoxiousness in America, the Phillies should be your choice to win the series.

Sure, there are other reasons to root for the Phils. A Phillies victory would further chip away at the notion that the AL reigns supreme. And it’s always nice to remind the Yankees that money can’t buy happiness. And wouldn’t you just love to see a close up of Kate Hudson consolling her man as he cries into her surpemely toned shoulder?

But really, it all comes down to minimizing assholishness. That’s what a Phillies victory would do.

It’s the post-postseason here in Boston, and Sox fans have been ruminating on what the team should do to produce a better outcome next year. And yet we haven’t heard too many actual, you know, ideas on how to make that happen. It’s just, um, like, try harder, I guess?

But I have two ideas, just for starters:

1. Sign Matt Holliday instead of Jason Bay. Both LFers will be expensive, so the Red Sox should pick the slightly younger one with more defensive ability. Boston can afford Holliday, and anyway, Papi and Lowell will both come off the books after 2010. Before you wave the “but he sucked in the AL!” bloody shirt at me, recall that Holliday’s “shitty” OBP with Oakland was .378 — 8 points better than Bay’s first half-season in the AL. And while his power numbers were down, Oakland is definitely on the pitcher’s park side of things. He wouldn’t have that problem in Fenway.

2. Shop Jonathan Papelbon. The Red Sox need some youth, and their best prospects are all 2-3 years out. They also need infield help. It could be the ideal time to shop Pap, who won’t stay with the Red Sox once he becomes a free agent after the 2011 season anyway. (Plus, his periphs alarm me.)

What are your thoughts, Umpbumpers? Is this crazy-talk? Are there other moves you think Boston should make?

Los Angeles Times columnist T.J. Simers can see the end in sight, and he’s a little bitter that his Dodgers are about to lose to the Philadelphia Phillies, of all teams.

Let’s take his insults one at a time.

As you know, Fox will be broadcasting the World Series and it likes to put the camera on the face of every single fan sitting in the stands, these fans as ugly as any in the country.

I’d like to debate the ugliness of Philly fans, but unfortunately Simers has science on his side. In Travel and Leisure’s recent “America’s Favorite Cities” poll, Philly received the least votes in the category of “attractive people.” Again. That’s three years in a row.

Nowhere in America are people more angry than those living here. During Game 3 they had their humorless furry mascot put on boxing gloves and take on someone who was supposed to be an L.A. fan, sunglasses, cellphone and all.

The furry mascot punched him out, much to the delight of the folks here who love a dash of violence with their sports entertainment.

Are Philly fans angry? Maybe. I prefer to think of them as passionate. Sometimes, that’s a good thing, and sometimes it’s not. But you won’t see many Philadelphia fans leaving a game in the seventh inning, as the LA fans are known to do. And you certainly won’t catch any of the Phillies players showering with two outs in the ninth.

During Game 4 the furry mascot took a small Dodgers blue helmet, placed it on the ground and then pulverized it, much to the delight of the locals. Same tired skits, by the way, they employed a year ago.

Same skits as a year ago? Pay attention, Simers. Those skits aren’t one-year old, they’re MANY YEARS old. They’re not tired, they’re classic.

But this is considered entertainment here, the only bright spot if they draw the Yankees now, getting a look in the mirror at fans who might remind them of themselves.

I’m being told that, according to a recent Sports Center poll, only about 8 percent of respondents want to see the Phillies in the World Series. Is that a surprise? Not really. I’m well aware that Philly fans are an acquired taste. But we have a saying in Philadelphia: “if you don’t like it, you can suck it.” It’s not quite as catchy as “Only in L.A.,” the current marketing ploy of the City of Angels, but it works for us.

Suck it, Simers. Tonight, Cole Hamels is bringing the heat.

This is just a tad disturbing:

Venezuelan authorities reportedly will exhume the body of former major league pitcher Geremi Gonzalez to probe whether he was killed last year by lightning, as an autopsy determined, or was the victim of a deadly robbery.

How does a coroner confuse the two?

Coroner: It’s clear to anyone who sees this body that he was electrocuted by lightning.

Assistant: But he has a bullet hole in his head.

Coroner: It’s lightning.

I’m confused. Is Gonzalez’ family grasping at straws? Did the coroner lie? And if so, why? Questions, questions…